Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think it would be reasonable to insist on
>>>at least one concurrence ("looks ok to me") posted to pgsql-patches
>>>before applying during late beta. We've gotten into a mode where
>>>if you like a patch you say nothing, but I wonder whether we shouldn't
>>>change that habit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Amen, brother! That would never be tolerated in any commercial setting
>>that I am aware of, and should not be here either, IMNSHO. Silence does
>>not mean consent, it is far more likely to mean that nobody had time to
>>look it over.And if you commit it then surely you own it to some extent.
>>
>>
>
>And your point is what? What suggestion for improvement do you have?
>Have perfect knowledge of what patches will be bad and don't apply them?
>
>You want me to claim ownership? Of what? Of applying the patch?
>Everyone already knows that. Of the patch being bad? Everyone already
>knows that too? What I shouldn't have applied it? Also known. But
>what good does that do us now?
>
>
Bruce,
I'm sorry if I offended you.
As for suggestions, elsewhere you wrote:
"Now, if I don't understand the patch, we can change the procedure so I
require someone to state it is OK rather than the fallback of quiet
acceptance, especially just before a beta or RC version."
Take that as my suggested improvement.
Keep up the good work as always - you know we are grateful for it.
cheers
andrew